Limitation to file a case
sanjeev kumar
(Querist) 23 April 2013
This query is : Resolved
D/Fellows,
In the reply of my query regarding limitation to file 498a case,it is replied that no such limit exist.I am not a lawyer and would like the further clarification of this judgement:-
Japani Sahoo vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 July, 2007
Author: C Thakker
Bench: C Thakker, T Chatterjee
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 942 of 2007
PETITIONER:
JAPANI SAHOO
RESPONDENT:
CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/07/2007
BENCH:
C.K. THAKKER & TARUN CHATTERJEE
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 942 OF 2007
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 4174 OF 2006
C.K. THAKKER, J.
1. Leave granted.
no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
13. Section 469 declares as to when the period of limitation would commence. Sections 470-471 provide for exclusion of period of limitation in certain cases. Section 472 deals with 'continuing' offences. Section 473 is an overriding provision and enables Courts to condone delay where such delay has been properly explained or where the interest of justice demands extension of period of limitation.
with regards
498a suferrer
ajay sethi
(Expert) 23 April 2013
the judgement is self explanatory . dowry harassment can be continuing offence .you may keep on harssing your wife for dowry . further under section 473 courts have powert o condone delay in interests of justice .
ajay sethi
(Expert) 23 April 2013
Bina Dey And Ors. vs Pratibha Dey (Baidya) on 10 April, 2003
Cites 8 docs - [View All]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987
Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 1979
Citedby 3 docs
Subal Sarkar And Ors. vs Smt. Purabi Sarkar (Das) on 2 November, 2005
Lutfar Ramman And Ors. vs Abdul Jalil And Ors. on 20 February, 2004
Sanjay Jalan vs Sunita Jalan on 6 May, 2004
The learned counsel for the respondent on the other had placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vijai Ratan Sharma and Ors. v. State of U. P., reported in 1988 Cri. LJ 1581. Asimilar view was taken by the Rajasthan High Court considering that an offence under Section 498A, IPC is a continuing offence. In the case of Jagdish and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998 Cri. LJ 554, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held as follows :
"7. If repeated demand for dowry is made and harassment is meted out to a woman which may be physical or mental is an act of cruelty. It is not necessary that the husband or his relatives must be present at the time when the housewife is subjected to cruelty. If their act or conduct, omission or commission is of such a nature which results in mental and physical harassment it will amount to an act of cruelty to a woman and it is immaterial that the woman is living at that relevant time at her matrimonial house or at her parents house. The offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence and if the act of cruelty continues even while, the woman is living at her parents house, the offence is triable by both the Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the act of continuing offence of cruelty has been committed at matrimonial house or the parents house.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 23 April 2013
no more to add.
